Attachment A_Technical Evaluation Criteria 10K Telehandler.pdf

Attachment A Evaluation Criteria

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s proposals for a 10K Telescopic Handler Forklift. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria set forth below.

The Government intends to make an award under this solicitation to the contractor whose proposal represent the Best Value to the Government. The Government will evaluate all proposals received against Specialized Experience and technical competence, Past Performance, and Price/Cost in accordance with Tables 01- 03.

A rating of Unacceptable in any of the Non-Priced factors 1 through 2 will render the entire proposal technically unacceptable and, therefore, not eligible for award. The non-price factors are listed below in descending order of importance.

The Government will conduct a detailed evaluation of the offerors approach and capability to meet the Government’s objectives against the following evaluation factors: (1) Specialized experience and technical competence, (2) Past Performance, (3) Price.

RATINGS and DEFINITION: The offerors technical proposals will be rated using the following Adjectival ratings: (1) Outstanding, (2) Very Good, (3) Acceptable, and (4) Unacceptable.

Table 01

Adjectival Past Performance

Outstanding The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that FEMA can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with very low risk. One or more examples where past performance significantly exceeded requirements.

Acceptable The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the FEMA may expect satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Vendor’s past performance record reflects minimal prior relevant experience and suggests some risk.

Unacceptable The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Vendor’s performance record, as applicable, suggests a high degree of risk.

Neutral A “Neutral” rating indicates a Vendor without a record of past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available.

Table 02

Adjectival Specialized experience and technical competence

Outstanding The proposal contains no weaknesses or deficiencies. The approach offers a strong understanding and significant strengths beneficial in meeting the Government’s requirement. Exceeds performance capability standards;

expected to contribute to the superior achievement of the objectives with no risk.

Very Good The proposal contains no deficiencies and a few, no more than two (2) weaknesses. The approach offers a clear understanding and strengths in meeting the Government’s requirement. The approach is expected to introduce minimal risk in achieving the objectives.

Acceptable The proposal contains no deficiencies and some weaknesses. The approach marginally meets the performance or capability standards necessary for minimal performance; moderate degree of risk in successfully meeting the Government’s requirements.

Unacceptable The Evaluation Factor response is expected to introduce excessive risk making it highly unlikely that performance would meet the objectives.

Table 03

Factor 1 – Past Performance The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s past performance conducting projects of a similar size, scope, and complexity, as proven by the successful management of current and previous contracts of a similar magnitude, scope, and complexity. In performing this evaluation, the Government will also consider the Offeror’s reputation for timely, accurate, and cooperative performance, as well as information obtained from other sources. The Government will place greater value on verifiable experience that is similar or the same as the requirements of the SOW. The Government reserves the right to consider any recent past performance information retrieved from Government databases (e.g. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Rating.

System (CPARS) for past performance consideration.

Offeror’s must provide the following past performance information:

• List three projects, completed within the past five years, with either the Federal

Government or commercial customers, which demonstrate work similar in type to the work described in this solicitation.

• Short description of the work performed

• List of at least three but not more than five clients familiar with performance

(include name, telephone number, physical address, and email address)

• Contract and/or task order annual and total dollar amount, contract and/or task order period of performance, and role performed, including whether the offeror acted as a prime or subcontractor.

Definitions For evaluation purposes the following definitions apply

Significant Strength

An element of the proposal which exceeding an exceptional understanding of the requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government

Strength An element of the proposal which demonstrates understanding of the requirement of the solicitation.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency A material failure of the proposal to meet a requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the likelihood of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level

Factor 2 – Specialized Experience and Technical Competence The contractor shall provide a response concerning the rental of a 10K Telescopic Handler Forklift in accordance with all requirements of the statement of work.

Factor 3 – Price/Cost The offeror shall provide a fixed rate schedule for supplies and services to either station a telehandler at FS4 or provide the telehandler on an as needed basis.

To determine price reasonableness, the government will review price to ensure that offerors have a clear understanding of the work and skills required for project or contract performance. Price Quotations determined to be unrealistic in terms of technical commitment or unrealistically low in price will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the contract requirements and may be grounds for the rejection of the quotation. If a price quotation does not demonstrate price realism, it will be evaluated as unacceptable and the offeror will not be considered for the award.